Referendum on Scottish Independence

[Oruc]

Oruc, why not read the conversation instead of butting in at a random point saying 'so'? For your answer, read the preceding posts.

I did read the conversation, splitting the mass into age groups is arbitrary and pointless.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Why is analysis 'arbitrary and pointless'?

 

[Pangur Bán]

A reminder of how Ashcroft broke it down:

This is the presentation that seals the 'it was the old wat won it' narrative:

For further:

Spoiler :

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/sep/20/scottish-independence-lord-ashcroft-poll

The YouGov one has roughly the same results, but the Herald gerrymandered the age boundaries to present a misleading picture.

 

[Flying Pig]

The Herald one actually looks a lot less gerrymandered, to be honest. Having 16-17 as a discrete category, given their very small numbers (even relatively speaking), is disingenuous.

 

[Pangur Bán]

The Herald one actually looks a lot less gerrymandered, to be honest. Having 16-17 as a discrete category, given their very small numbers (even relatively speaking), is disingenuous.

I think you're looking for what you want to find. The Lord Ashcroft poll was first and has even 10 year groups, and the youngest age group is only isolated because of their special status. The YouGov/Herald presentation is bizarre. Instead of even 10-year groups, it has 7 / 16 / 19 / 5--presumably to minimize the number it could present as having voted Yes.

 

[Flying Pig]

I like the ten year groups, but I disagree with giving the 16-17 year olds that much prominence - the chart you said 'seals the narrative' strongly implies that they are as important as the 65+ group, which is bizarre. They should be a footnote in the 16-25 column.

 

[Traitorfish]

Do we have figures on turnout among the different age groups? Because if we assume that 16-17 year olds and 18-24 year olds voted in roughly proportional numbers, it gives an overall average of 53% among 16-24 year olds.

 

[Pangur Bán]

I like the ten year groups, but I disagree with giving the 16-17 year olds that much prominence - the chart you said 'seals the narrative' strongly implies that they are as important as the 65+ group, which is bizarre. They should be a footnote in the 16-25 column.

Its great narrative power is that it's the very youngest and most Yes, so contrasts most starkly with the very oldest and most No. I agree it's misleading in terms of the size of particular demographics (by far the smallest v. by far the largest), but Tory Lord Ashcroft's polling had no interest in giving Yessers a good narrative.

 

[Pangur Bán]

@TF, don't think we do.

 

[Flying Pig]

Its great narrative power is that it's the very youngest and most Yes, so contrasts most starkly with the very oldest and most No. I agree it's misleading, but Tory Lord Ashcroft's polling had no interest in giving Yessers a good narrative.

It gives them a much better narrative than an actually honest method would!

 

[Pangur Bán]

It gives them a much better narrative than an actually honest method would!

Why is it not honest? All these different ages groups are crushed numerically by pensioners, but that is the point being made; each age group represents differing (if not distinct) generational experiences, but one group's sheer size meant more. If you had three bars according to size, it would be the same picture (1 strong Yes, 2 even, 3 overwhelmingly No).

 

[Farm Boy]

It gives them a much better narrative than an actually honest method would!

I'm not sure the narrative is entirely flattering to either side, is it? Aren't there reasons besides raw fitness that military recruiters and hate groups target certain demographics?

 

[Flying Pig]

Why is it not honest? All these different ages groups are crushed numerically by pensioners, but that is the point being made; each age group represents differing (if not distinct) generational experiences, but one group's sheer size meant more. If you had three bars according to size, it would be the same picture (1 strong Yes, 2 even, 3 overwhelmingly No).

If you split the pensioners and put the schoolchildren with their age cohort, you'd have four bars practically undecided, one showing lukewarm support, one showing lukewarm disapproval, and three showing strong disapproval of it. Even putting that green line makes it look as if more are 'above the line' and therefore voting 'yes' than there are, though that's only at a cursory glance.

I'm not sure the narrative is entirely flattering to either side, is it? Aren't there reasons besides raw fitness that military recruiters and hate groups target certain demographics?

Quite. My implicit point was that the young who don't have contact with the 'real world' of finding jobs and houses and having to do things for themselves shouldn't be used to judge the rest of them.

 

[Pangur Bán]

If you split the pensioners and put the schoolchildren with their age cohort, you'd have four bars practically undecided, one showing lukewarm support, one showing lukewarm disapproval, and three showing strong disapproval of it. Even putting that green line makes it look as if more are 'above the line' and therefore voting 'yes' than there are, though that's only at a cursory glance.

Four bars in favour you mean. Same picture, maybe very marginally a less little emphatic, but hardly worth arguing about. The weirdness of the pensioner vote would still be what stands out.

 

[Flying Pig]

If you're going to complain about the Herald's gerrymandering and tweaking the age groups to get the result they want, it seems hypocritical to say that it's 'hardly worth arguing about' when the side you like does it!

 

[Tahuti]

Morality of the tale: Baby boomers and older should die for Scotland to be free!

 

[Pangur Bán]

If you're going to complain about the Herald's gerrymandering and tweaking the age groups to get the result they want, it seems hypocritical to say that it's 'hardly worth arguing about' when the side you like does it!

Sorry, you've completely lost me now, I don't see the remotest parallel. I don't think I even get what you're trying to argue either, have found it difficult to make sense of your past few posts.

 

[Flying Pig]

the Herald gerrymandered the age boundaries to present a misleading picture

The Ashcroft divisions give the 'Yes' side a much better narrative

maybe very marginally, but hardly worth arguing about

There seems to be a double standard at work here.

 

[Pangur Bán]

There seems to be a double standard at work here.

Still not sure what you are saying. To summarize, Ashcroft's poll was presented in standard 10-year age-range boxes with the normal 65+ box and a special under 18 box; its publication supported a strong Old v. Young / No v. Yes narrative, one that Yessers liked. YouGov/Herald gerrymandered similar findings to attack that narrative, but their findings were actually almost identical. You suggested that the LA-induced narrative would be less strong if LA's poll had subdivided the pensioner age group and merged the two youngest. I replied that it wouldn't make much more than marginal difference.

In all that I can't figure out where you're getting this hypocrisy stuff from. Maybe I didn't make it sufficiently clear that I distinguish narrative power from my own opinion about it? I'm not saying the narrative should be used, I'm saying it has power and that it's pretty hard to argue with as a general picture.

 

[classical_hero]

The Herald one actually looks a lot less gerrymandered, to be honest. Having 16-17 as a discrete category, given their very small numbers (even relatively speaking), is disingenuous.

What they should have done is give the percentage representation of each group so it is clear the sway of each group on the vote.